"The poor": kill them

There is no "the poor." There are varying income levels which correlate with the degree to which you have your shit together.

Generally true, but more true in a Wealth and IQ of Nations sense and less so when scale is reduced to demographics within nations. There are lots of young motivated Westerners struggling hard at this time in their lives and it isn't for a lack of competence.

Idea: support commodity futures speculation and corn to ethanol production. This is way more effective for targeted population reduction than abortion, birth control or console games. Plus the compulsive snivelers can't gasp at any particular person for being an unnice meany for making the world a far better place for future generations.

Quote

In 2008 and in 2011, the world was rocked by riots and by revolutions coinciding with spikes in food prices. Now researchers are projecting that by 2013, food prices will soar to unparalleled heights, causing widespread hunger in the most vulnerable populations and social unrest, with an enormous potential for loss of human life.

The computer modeling that generated the prediction of a food crisis was first published by the New England Complex Systems Institute in September. The modeling has gained considerable credibility by accurately predicting food prices over the last 10 months. The research indicates that the crucial factors behind food price increases are the conversion of corn crops to ethanol and investor speculation on the agricultural futures market.

“There are two policy decisions we’ve identified as key drivers,” said Yaneer Bar-Yam, president of the institute. “The first is the promotion of ethanol conversion, which provides the U.S. with less than 1 percent of its energy but has a much larger effect on global food availability.” The second is the deregulation of commodity markets by Congress’s Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, the report said.

There are so many useless regulations to "help" the poor, I'd rather be left without any government intervention. Poor folk really need to be let go. Then chaos ensues as they freak over how they can't be fed directly by food stamps and such, and then the true weeding out and enrichment of the poor strata begins.

Our regulations to help poor people are set up that to benefit, you really must have nothing to your name, and these regulations in health care, food, and job industries do nothing to alleviate any problems.

“In the improbable event that the heavens were to part and an angel were to task me with immediately eliminating half the global population, I’d halve the global IQ bell curve at its apex and sweep away everything to the left of it.”

Paul Gigot: This week on "The Journal Editorial Report," 50 years after Lyndon Johnson declared War on Poverty, President Obama says poverty is still winning, and he's pushing forward with more government solutions. But is there a better way? Some prominent conservatives are weighing in.

Quote

Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.): The current government programs that are designed to address poverty--they help alleviate some of the pain of poverty, but they do not help people emerge from it. They do not help people rise above it. We have got to deal and with that and with opportunity and equality, not just income inequality. The president's got the wrong focus.

Jason, let's first talk about the Democratic agenda and their focus on income inequality. They're people driving this right now as part of their election-year campaign theme. Why now?

Riley: I think a couple reasons, Paul. Obviously, the ObamaCare rollout has been such a disaster. It's what everyone's talking about. It's been driving down the president's approval rating, so they want to change the subject. But secondly, this is sort of an evergreen for the left--income inequality, class-warfare issues. They think it works for them. This is an effort to get back to something they're comfortable discussing in an election year. They think it will resonate with people in this economy. And that's another reasons they're doing it.

Gigot: But here's one of the downsides, I would assume anyway: They've been in charge for five years.

There is no "the poor." There are varying income levels which correlate with the degree to which you have your shit together.

...

Kill the poor.

Never make an absolute move like that based on a moderate correlation. The point of being able to play mental simulations like this is that we can keep improving out levels of correlation until it becomes an effective causal relationship.

I'm sure the world would be better if the under "120s" just disappeared, but why is this? What is this magical quality of humans that we are trying to preserve, and what would be a better way to determine it?

Besides, it's not about money, it's about influence. Money helps you attain influence, but there are various other ways to it - some of them essentiall self-contained to a naive observer.

(And in an over-populated world, sometimes the best move for the whole is simply to not consume, i.e. to self-induce poorness. Such a subset of the population makes for good impact absorbtion any time a crisis comes close, and such a discriminatory move such as being poor = being inferior means to ignore this function of keeping the species moving in a crisis. But then, who wants to keep the species going anyway?)

Correlation becomes Causation when all Concepts are Cleared.

Think of it like this. An under 120 believes what they are told. An over 120 does not. If the under 120 dies out, then over 120 remains. People no longer do what they are told, and as the tellers have the power to destroy, and the lack of care to do it, without anyone for them to TELL to do it, who will do it? They're probably too lazy themselves.

Consumption leads to the expulsion of waste. But the garbage of one can be the treasure of another. Everything keeps cycling around. Things sort themselves out. When something feels it is going to die, whether that be an individual, a gene, anything that can do, every piece of preparation for that moment gets put into play.

There are so many useless regulations to "help" the poor, I'd rather be left without any government intervention. Poor folk really need to be let go. Then chaos ensues as they freak over how they can't be fed directly by food stamps and such, and then the true weeding out and enrichment of the poor strata begins.

What happens when they hold you up in your car with a knife, or break into your home while your children sleep, perhaps raping one of them and/or stabbing them in a fit of panic?

Do you want to live in a South African type city, where it is unsafe to be anywhere unless it's behind large walls - an effective 'green zone'? Welfare exists not just for the benefit of the poor.

There are varying income levels which correlate with the degree to which you have your shit together.

Many of us here probably earn less than your average tradesperson. If you are in academia, music, the arts, etc, you will earn less than many/most people, at least for a time. This generalisation is pure nonsense.

It also reflects a rather naive enlightement, blank-slate, view of human nature - where everyone starts on the same level playing field, and so if you end up with less than some other people you don't 'have your shit together'.

There are different starting points:

-Genes-Environment

If you are born into a fucking terrible environment with alcoholic, drug-fucked parents, you are going to struggle. You are going to need welfare. More to the point, your parents will be the recipients of the welfare - but the welfare is for you.

Do we condemn you if you are born into a shit family, before you even have a chance to rise up? Or do people think that strong people are going to overcome the odds, no matter what point they begin from, and that welfare is thus redundant?

A way into this question might be to look at what environments people here were born into. If they are all pretty stable, moral, plentiful ones, then it might be worthwhile considering how things would have turned out had these environments been impoverished - at the fault of parents or not (i.e. place of birth, accidents, etc).

There are so many useless regulations to "help" the poor, I'd rather be left without any government intervention. Poor folk really need to be let go. Then chaos ensues as they freak over how they can't be fed directly by food stamps and such, and then the true weeding out and enrichment of the poor strata begins.

What happens when they hold you up in your car with a knife, or break into your home while your children sleep, perhaps raping one of them and/or stabbing them in a fit of panic?

Do you want to live in a South African type city, where it is unsafe to be anywhere unless it's behind large walls - an effective 'green zone'? Welfare exists not just for the benefit of the poor.

All empires gradually impoverish their citizens, it's simply the nature of the business. Considering we are on the decline, these polemic arguments are not applicable because, by any honest measure, the amount of options one has is contracting year by year.

There's also the blank faced, wide eyed, mimicking of baby boomer propaganda that says hard work and a career will bring you success. If one does not follow their pattern, one is a lazy slacker. Almost no consideration is made towards the conditions that allowed the boomers to attend universities and find well paying work. Further, there is the high tendency to become nonsensically reactionary against liberalism, or that which is perceived as liberalism. The answer to one extreme is not always the other as demonstrated by you in this post.

I'm not interested in propping up our society, but I'm not interested in watching it devolve into a third world crime den either. There has to be a constructive option.

Edit: I didn't mean to implicate you, imposition, of using polemics. That was intended for most of what was being entertained in this thread.

Editing the Edit:

It's far too common place to discuss human beings without grounding that discussion in real world conditions and cultural context.

What happens when they hold you up in your car with a knife, or break into your home while your children sleep, perhaps raping one of them and/or stabbing them in a fit of panic?

Do you want to live in a South African type city, where it is unsafe to be anywhere unless it's behind large walls - an effective 'green zone'? Welfare exists not just for the benefit of the poor.

How on earth could someone use a knife to hold you up, especially if you're in a car? I understand most people aren't familiar with real violence, so perhaps simply calling a tool "weapon" makes it suddenly terrifying. Other than that, I can't understand giving in to anyone who tries to threaten with something as manageable as a knife.

Anyway, the answer to your "what to do" question is obvious. You kill them. With bullets. Was that a real question or have I been trolled?

You could also pay someone else to do this for you, if you find blood to be a bit too icky. Same difference. Alternately, if you're more into purity than pragmatism, you could start a cult whose members swear blood oaths to you or whatever.

As to the second part, that issue could be resolved just as easily with slavery as it could with welfare. Why not enslave, imprison, or otherwise punish the poor into absolute compliance?

What happens when they hold you up in your car with a knife, or break into your home while your children sleep, perhaps raping one of them and/or stabbing them in a fit of panic?

Do you want to live in a South African type city, where it is unsafe to be anywhere unless it's behind large walls - an effective 'green zone'? Welfare exists not just for the benefit of the poor.

How on earth could someone use a knife to hold you up, especially if you're in a car? I understand most people aren't familiar with real violence, so perhaps simply calling a tool "weapon" makes it suddenly terrifying. Other than that, I can't understand giving in to anyone who tries to threaten with something as manageable as a knife.

Anyway, the answer to your "what to do" question is obvious. You kill them. With bullets. Was that a real question or have I been trolled?

You could also pay someone else to do this for you, if you find blood to be a bit too icky. Same difference. Alternately, if you're more into purity than pragmatism, you could start a cult whose members swear blood oaths to you or whatever.

As to the second part, that issue could be resolved just as easily with slavery as it could with welfare. Why not enslave, imprison, or otherwise punish the poor into absolute compliance?